USPTO Patents Application 09725849

a&/ PTO/SB/21 (09-04)

r&jlffi Approved for use through 07/31/2006. OMB 0651-0031

TfiAggg^ U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to res

pond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.

TRANSMITTAL
FORM

(to be used for all correspondence after initial filing)

Application Number

09/725,849-Conf. #8778

Filing Date

November 30, 2000

First Named Inventor

Jong J. PARK

Art Unit

2675

Examiner Name

A. A. Awad

Total Number of Pages in This Submission

3

Attorney Docket Number

2658-0252P

ENCLOSURES (Check all that apply)

| | Fee Transmittal Form
| | Fee Attached

i — 1

Amendment/Reply

| | After Final

[ | Affidavits/declaration(s)
| | Extension of Time Request
[ | Express Abandonment Request

| | Information Disclosure Statement

I I Certified Copy of Priority
I — I Document(s)

I I Reply to Missing Parts/
I I Incomplete Application

I I Reply to Missing Parts under
I I 37 CFR1.52 or 1.53

| | Drawing(s)

| | Licensing-related Papers

| | Petition

I I Petition to Convert to a
I — I Provisional Application

I I Power of Attorney, Revocation

I I Change of Correspondence Address

[ | Tenninal Disclaimer
| | Request for Refund
| | CD, Number of CD(s)

| [ Landscape Table on CD

I I After Allowance Communication
I ItoTC

I I Appeal Communication to Board of
I — I Appeals and Interferences

I | Appeal Communication to TC
I I (Appeal Notice, Brief, Reply Brief)

| | Proprietary Information

| | Status Letter

I x I Other Enclosure(s) (please
I I Identify below):

Reply Brief

Remarks

SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT, ATTORNEY, OR AGENT

Firm Name

BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP

Signature

Printed name

Esther H. Chong

Date

Dec. 2, 2005 Reg * No ' 40,953

Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP

EHC/RFG/njp

Docket No.: 2658-0252P
(PATENT)

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

In re Patent Application of:
Jong J. PARK et al.

Application No.: 09/725,849

Filed: November 30, 2000

For: METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DRIVING
LIQUID CRYSTAL DISPLAY

REPLY BRIEF

MS Appeal Brief - Patents
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450

Sir:

This is a Reply Brief in answer to the Examiner's Answer dated October 6,

2005.

First, Applicants wish to establish for the record the situation regarding the
mailing of the Examiner's Answer. Applicants received an Examiner's Answer
originally that was dated August 25, 2004. Apparentiy, this Examiner's Answer had
been sent to the wrong Law Firm and was returned by that Firm to the Patent Office.
However, that Law Firm also forwarded a copy to Applicants' attorney at the correct
address. No Reply Brief was filed in answer to the Examiner's Answer of August 25,
2004. A Second Examiner's Answer which appears to be identical to the First was
then mailed on October 6, 2005. Applicants are submitting the present Reply Brief by
the apparent due date of December 6, 2005. Thus, Applicants understand that the
present Examiner's Answer has been resubmitted to Applicant merely because of the
error in the Address. Applicants' attorney contacted Examiner Awad on October 18,
2005 to verify these facts.

Confirmation No.: 008778
Art Unit: 2675
Examiner: A. A. Awad

Birch, Stewart, Kolasch & Birch, LLP

EHC/RFG/cm

Application No.: 09/725,849

Docket No.: 2658-0252P

Applicants wish to reply to one point of the Examiner found on page 8 of the
Examiner's Answer. The Examiner apparently is taking the position that if a second
signal is applied starting at the end of the frame and extending into a second frame,
this qualifies as being during the ending of the first frame. Applicants submit that
this violates the clear meaning of the language. Applicants submit that the term
"during the ending of the frame" means entirely within the frame and during the last
part of that frame. It does not mean a signal which occurs in the following frame.
Applicants submit the Examiner is incorrect in his understanding of this term.

For the reason recited above and for the reasons recited in the original Appeal
Brief, Applicants submit that the various rejections of the Examiner are in error.
Accordingly, it is respectfully requested the Examiner reverse the rejections of claims

1- 8, 11-14, 16 and 18.

If necessary, the Commissioner is hereby authorized in this, concurrent, and
future Replies, to charge payment or credit any overpayment to Deposit Account No.

02- 2448 for any additional fees required under 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.16 or 1.17; particularly,
extension of time fees.

Dated: DEC, 2, 2005 Respectfully submitted,

CONCLUSION

By ^C JMT c/—~

Esther H. Chong WftSb
Registration No.: 40,953
BIRCH, STEWART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP
8110 Gatehouse Road
Suite 100 East
P.O. Box 747

Falls Church, Virginia 22040-0747
(703) 205-8000
Attorney for Applicant

j

2

EHC/RFG/cm